## Facts

- Boston College sponsored the “Belfast Project,” an oral-history program collecting confidential interviews about the Northern Ireland conflict, stored under confidentiality agreements.
- The United Kingdom investigated the abduction and killing of Jean McConville and sought Belfast Project materials believed to contain relevant information.
- The United States, acting under the U.S.–U.K. Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT) and 18 U.S.C. § 3512, initiated proceedings to execute the request.
- A federal commissioner issued a subpoena in the District of Massachusetts directing Boston College to produce recordings and/or transcripts of interviews “containing information about the abduction or death” of McConville.
- Boston College refused voluntary production, citing confidentiality commitments and academic-freedom concerns, and moved to quash after the government sought enforcement.
- The district court enforced the subpoena but conducted in camera review and limited production to materials it found responsive to the McConville investigation.

## Issues

1. Whether a federal court has authority to entertain a motion to quash a subpoena issued under 18 U.S.C. § 3512 to execute an MLAT request.
2. If so, what scope and standard of review apply to enforcement of MLAT subpoenas, including the extent of deference owed to the Executive’s decision to honor the request.
3. Whether academic-freedom and confidentiality interests justify quashing or materially narrowing the subpoena.

## Decision

- The First Circuit held that federal courts may consider motions to quash MLAT subpoenas issued under § 3512, rejecting the view that such subpoenas are unreviewable.
- The court limited judicial review to ensuring the subpoena fits within the treaty and statutory framework and is not unreasonable, oppressive, or unduly burdensome under traditional subpoena standards.
- The court declined to recognize an academic-research/academic-freedom privilege that would categorically bar production of the materials.
- The court approved the district court’s use of in camera review and affirmed enforcement of the subpoena as narrowed.

## Legal Principles

- Subpoenas issued under 18 U.S.C. § 3512 to execute an MLAT request are subject to judicial process, and recipients may raise traditional objections by motion to quash.
- Judicial review of MLAT subpoena enforcement is narrow and generally confined to statutory/treaty compliance and ordinary reasonableness and burden analysis.
- Courts owe substantial deference to the Executive Branch’s decision to honor a foreign MLAT request; courts generally do not review foreign-policy or prosecutorial judgments underlying that decision.
- Confidentiality agreements and asserted academic-freedom interests do not, without a recognized privilege in statute or common law, create immunity from compelled disclosure; at most, such interests may inform tailoring measures (e.g., in camera screening, partial enforcement).

## Conclusion

The First Circuit affirmed enforcement of an MLAT subpoena against Boston College, holding that courts may hear motions to quash but may only apply limited, traditional subpoena review, and that academic-freedom and confidentiality concerns do not create a privilege against production, though courts may narrow and screen materials to reduce unnecessary intrusion.


In re Request from the United Kingdom Pursuant to the Treaty Between the Gov’t of the U.S. of Am. & the Gov’t of the U.K. on Mut. Assistance in Crim. Matters, 718 F.3d 13 (1st Cir. 2013)